_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuestOctober 21 2015 19:25_______________________________________________________________

21 October 2015 ProQuest

Table of contents

1. Business succession planning: a review of the evidence............................................................................. 1

Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................... 22

21 October 2015 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1 Business succession planning: a review of the evidence Author: Ip, Barry; Jacobs, Gabriel ProQuest document link Abstract (Abstract): This article aims to review business and academic literature on the topic of businesssuccession planning (BSP). The purpose is to allow the vast quantity of evidence and opinion to becontextualised, and enable a better understanding of the key themes within BSP, particularly with respect tosmall, family-owned businesses. An extensive literature search of business magazines, journal databases,textbooks, and relevant reports and citations was carried out. A categorisation of the evidence, involving over400 articles, allowed informed discussions on the key themes surrounding BSP. Key findings include familysuccession, legal, financial, and fiscal components, barriers against implementation, and methods for managingthe process. A detailed summary of these and other topics is given, which together constitute the critical themeswhich should be borne in mind by businesses facing BSP. The main weakness of this paper is the lack oftheoretical development. However, the findings prompt key areas for future research, and help to contextualisethe topic for any potential new developments in succession planning. Despite the need for further scientific andvalidated studies, businesses are urged to devote sufficient resources and attention towards succession topromote long-term survival and prosperity. Links: Linking Service Full text: Introduction Built on the idea of change, the roots of business succession planning (BSP) lie within anthropology and thestudy of kinship ([45] Fox, 1967, pp. 16-7, [46] 1993; [43] Fortes, 1970, p. 305; [117] Parkin, 1997, pp. 22-3,127). Early work into business succession by authors such as [20] Christensen (1953), [55] Gouldner (1954),[154] Trow (1961), and [59] Guest (1962) helped to fuel its dissemination into a wider management context,which in the present day encompasses leadership planning, change management, human resources, andindeed almost any area of business involving change. While it may not have received as much attention in thegeneral management literature as one might expect, it is unarguably a critical issue for any corporation, team, orindividual, to consider how it plans for the future. One definition of BSP is: The transfer of a business that results from the owner's wish to retire or to leave the business for some otherreason. The succession can involve a transfer to members of the owner's family, employees, or external buyers.Successful succession results in a continuation of the business, at least in the short term ([107] Martin et al. ,2002, p. 6; [146] SBS, 2004, p. 7). Thus, in broad terms, it is a process through which companies plan for the future transfer of ownership and/ortop management. However, care should be exercised so as to not confuse succession planning withreplacement planning. While replacement planning is often referred to as a means of risk/crisis managementaimed at reducing the likelihood of catastrophe from the unplanned loss of key personnel ([127] Rothwell, 2001,p. 7), succession planning entails a longer term and more extensive approach towards the training andreplacement of key individuals ([162] Wolfe, 1996; [127] Rothwell, 2001, p. 7). Consequently, a more expansivedefinition is: A deliberate and systematic effort by an organisation to ensure leadership continuity in key positions, retain anddevelop intellectual and knowledge capital for the future, and encourage individual advancement ([127]Rothwell, 2001, p. 6). In this context, BSP encompasses not only top-level management, but also a breadth of other factors. It can

21 October 2015 Page 1 of 22 ProQuest

cover issues such as the procedures necessary for a successful transfer, legal and financial considerations,psychological factors, leadership development, and exit strategies. As mentioned above, early work on familysuccession was based on the study of kinship, and as we shall see, this is still often intertwined with BSP. The bulk of research associated with BSP concerns small- to medium-sized businesses (SMEs (companies withup to 250 employees)) but there is also a body of work-related larger companies, including multinationals.Succession issues are generally applicable to organisations regardless of size, sector, and geographic location. Statistical data compiled by the Small Business Service (SBS) in the UK reveals that SMEs accounted for over50 per cent of employment in 2003 ([144], [145] SBS, 2003a, b). In Wales and Northern Ireland, this figure iseven greater at over 70 per cent of all employment, while a similar trend can also be observed in many otherareas in the UK ([144], [145] SBS, 2003a, b). Manifestly, we are talking here of a substantial proportion of theBritish economy, and as will be shown in the examination of existing research presented here, there is a seriousthreat to the future prosperity of existing SMEs in terms of the lack of adequate succession planning. Among the variety of notable work relating to BSP in the UK, the [146] SBS (2004) has recently complied areport in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTi) which identifies the problems associatedwith business succession, thus highlighting the Government's concerns in this area. Similar concerns can befound in Europe, as encapsulated in documents produced by The European Federation of Accountants - FEE -([37] FEE, 2000); and in the USA, via the Small Business Administration (SBA), and BSP issues in Australia,Finland, Canada, and China have also been reported in the literature. The clear message that can be gleanedfrom all this is that BSP is a global issue, yet it is an area where comparatively little rigorous research has beencarried out, particularly with respect to methods of application. The aim of this paper is to synthesise theavailable evidence in order to provide a broad reflection of how BSP affects various types of businesses, toreport on approaches towards the use of BSP including barriers against it and financial and legal matters, toidentify evidence relating to best practice, and to highlight gaps where further work might justifiably be carriedout. Methods A number of decisions had to be made with regard to how the relevant BSP literature was to be unearthed forthis research, in particular the sources of information, and the search terms to be used when accessingdatabases. In order to capture a broad coverage of BSP literature, searches were carried out using the followingsources: - BSP textbooks; - academic journal databases available at the University - Emerald, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, Kluwer,JSTOR, and EBSCO; - web sites of relevant business-support communities and governmental organisations (such as SBS and DTi);and - other significant BSP articles/reports cited in the literature. Search criteria for databases included BSP-related terminology even if apparently related only indirectly, suchas terms related to business exit strategies, management training/development, and leadership. The searchesbegan with articles central to the BSP debate, and from there moved to articles on possible related topics.Searches were carried out by combining each term shown in column 1 with each in column 2 in Table I [Figureomitted. See Article Image.] using AND and OR operators - for example, (business AND succession) OR(management AND succession). Categories searched were abstract, titles, and keywords. No restrictions wereplaced on publication date or journal subject. Over 400 articles and nine books were found via electronic sources and deemed to cover BSP in a significantamount of detail. A further 100 or so articles and reports were identified through citations (because of theiterative nature of this exercise, the precise number of articles considered is not given here, but those central tothis study can be found in the bibliography). Articles ranged from commentary found in business magazines to

21 October 2015 Page 2 of 22 ProQuest

well-conducted surveys and methodology in academic journals, from case studies to BSP textbooks. Some hadto be excluded as being too brief for the final analysis (this applied mainly to commentaries in businessmagazines). The number of hits may be considered modest in comparison to those available within establishedmanagement disciplines such as marketing, tourism, or accountancy, but the breadth of issues revealed wasnoteworthy. Summary of main findings Context of BSP and general issues [68] Hawkey (2002) and [143] Sherman (2003) draw attention to various types of business exit: - family succession; - management buy-ins and buy-outs (see also [37] FEE, 2000; [70] Howorth et al. , 2004); - franchising and licensing - where the owner sells the right to use the business' trademarks and systems inreturn for fees and royalties but is no longer responsible for financing the business; - joint ventures - as a partial exit to spread the company's investment; - public listing on stock exchanges; - mergers with another company; and - cessation of trading, liquidation. [24] Co-Operatives (2003) also provides an outline of other forms of ownership transfer: - benevolent successions/disposals - when the owner gives the business to employees, or sells it to them underfavourable conditions; - divestment and contracting out - where large companies sell off subsidiaries, or contract a service out andallow the workforce to buy a part of the business or undertake the contract themselves; and - rescues - saving a part of a business which is in some difficulty. There is, then, no shortage of options for business transfer. But as will be discussed in more detail below, asizeable proportion of businesses lack adequate succession plans, and while it should not be assumed thatclosure necessarily reflects failure (see [69] Headd, 2003), only around 5 per cent to 15 per cent of familybusinesses, in Europe at least, reach the third generation, and 30 per cent of closures may be consideredtransfer failures ([37] FEE, 2000; [98] Le Breton-Miller et al. , 2004; [146] SBS, 2004). The driving force behindBSP is to facilitate the going-concern of a business, and to reduce the obvious threats to local economiesbrought about by business closures (even if closure is a plausible exit strategy). These statistics may not be toosurprising when one takes into account the wide spectrum of business and even non-business contexts affectedby BSP. Concerns related to planning for succession can be seen to feature heavily in industries as diverse asthose shown below (only a selection of references are noted here): - accountancy ([47] Frances, 1993; [3] Arlinghaus, 2000; [153] Torrisi-Mokwa, 2003); - automobiles ([59] Guest, 1962; [56] Grady, 2002; [166] Yoswick, 2004); - construction ([38] Fairweather, 2000); - credit unions ([164] Yancey, 2001; [25] Courter, 2003; [111] May, 2003; [82] Johnson, 2004a; [93] Lanphear,2003); - education ([27] d'Arbon et al. , 2002; [41] Fink and Brayman, 2004); - entrepreneurial firms ([119] Peay and Dyer, 1989); - environmental ([101] Liu and Ashton, 1995; [63] Haneveld and Stegeman, 2005); - financial advice/planning ([100] Lieblein and Wevodau, 2003; [57] Grau and Grable, 2004); - food ([116] Papiernik, 2000); - franchises ([104] McKenna, 1996; [134] Schaeffer, 1999, [135] 2001); - healthcare ([76] Husting and Alderman, 2001; [1] Abrams, 2002; [50] Fruth, 2003; [126] Rollins, 2003); - IT ([87] Kindley, 2002; [91] Kubilus, 2003; [73] HR Focus , 2004); - law firms ([95], [96], [97] Law Office Management &Administration Report , 2001, 2003, 2005; [151] Taylor,

21 October 2015 Page 3 of 22 ProQuest

2003; [23] Compensation &Benefits for Law Offices , 2004); - local government and public services ([136] Schall, 1997; [83] Johnson, 2004b; [78] Ibarra, 2005); - multinational corporations such as McDonald's, Disney, and Walmart ([84] Johnson, 1998; [36] Ellis, 2003; [42]Flahardy, 2004; [15] Business Week , 2005); - politics ([130] Rush, 1962; [13] Bunce, 1979, [14] 1980; [110] Mauzy, 1993); - sport ([122] Personnel Today , 2002; [129] Rowe and Rankin, 2003; [53] Giambatista, 2004); - venture capital firms ([140] Sheahan, 2004); and - military ([94] Larsson et al. , 2003) and unexpected events , e.g. consequences of terrorism ([58] Greengard,2001). Even the above list is by no means exhaustive, since BSP plays a role in virtually any business or social contextwhere the element of continuity is desirable. In addition, the spread of BSP is on an international scale, withreports in the literature covering areas including the USA, the UK, Canada, Europe, Russia, Australia, andChina. The range of BSP issues is thus very wide, such that it is not obvious how it can most usefully be categorised.Nevertheless, the following topic areas provide workable divisions: - family and organisational issues; - legal, finance, and tax issues; - other barriers against BSP; and - practical approaches to BSP Family and organisational issues BSP literature usually falls into one of two broad categories - succession within family-owned firms (retaining ofownership and/or running of a company by family members), and within those which are not family-owned.While the issue of family or non-family succession within a particular company is not necessarily an indicator ofcompany size (for instance, companies with an early history of family succession such as Ford and Disney havebecome multinationals), it is nevertheless within the area of smaller, family-run businesses where the bulk ofBSP research has been done ([146] SBS, 2004). Indeed, as will be seen in the discussion below, the issue offamily- and non-family succession has become a widespread area of debate. The first part of this section looksat family-based succession, the second at succession outside of family circles. An early evaluation by [154] Trow (1961) of over 100 SME manufacturing companies revealed that finding afamily successor appears to be engrained in succession mentality. Briefly, the process is described as follows. Ifthe principal owner has a son, he is the first successor to be considered. If the son is too young, not interestedin the business, or is considered to lack ability, succession is postponed. If, however, the owner departs, theson will become the successor regardless of any shortfalls. Only if the owner has no heir will other persons frominside or outside the firm be considered for succession, but for this, Trow points out that small family-ownedfirms generally experience greater difficulty in attracting successors from outside the organisation. While it can be argued that such an approach may not be the most efficient, nor even in the best interests of acompany, the reasons for its coming about are clear enough. Having established a successful business, anowner has an understandable desire to leave it in the hands of his/her children, who as a result may receivepreferential treatment ([26] Cromie et al. , 1999). Nor should it be assumed that such nepotism is necessarily tothe detriment of the company in question, since there is some evidence to suggest justifiable economic reasonsbehind it ([99] Lee et al. , 2003). But it may be fraught with problems: the difficulty of ensuring that the familysuccessor can acclimatise to the firm's past, present, and future ([112] Miller et al. , 2003); the unwillingness ofthe current incumbent to step aside; the potential successor's aversion to taking over, disagreement amongfamily members, non-acceptance of individual roles ([80] IOD, 1996; [139] Sharma et al. , 2000, [138] 2003);lack of adequate control of emotional issues necessary for maintaining trust between family members ([152]Therrien, 2004); and the sheer absence of any perceptible succession planning, especially in SMEs ([8] Berman

21 October 2015 Page 4 of 22 ProQuest

Brown and Coverley, 1999; [74] Huang, 1999; [81] Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods, 2002; [21] Chung and Yuen,2003; [148] Snyder, 2003; [158] Wang et al. , 2004). As palliatives, there is a whole host of suggestions as tohow transitions can be better managed (discussed in a later section), how to develop contingency plans ([163]Wolosky, 2003), and even the possibility of management buy-ins (typically by external entrepreneurs) and buy-outs (by senior members already in the firm) ([70] Howorth et al. , 2004) aimed at ensuring an effectivesuccession and the long-term survival of the firm. One key practical aspect seems to stand out. In order to ensure the long-term prosperity of succession to familymembers, nurturing and mentoring are essential for developing and maintaining the founder's entrepreneurialvalues and drive ([79] Ibrahim et al. , 2004). The point is emphasised by [113] Morris et al. (1996) who note thatsuccessful heirs are generally observed to be well-prepared in terms of educational background andexperience, and to have spent a number of years working at all levels within the company concerned.Successful family transitions also enjoy positive family relationships with limited conflict, rivalry and hostility, andgood levels of trust ([113] Morris et al. , 1996). Such factors cannot be dismissed lightly, as amply demonstratedin a study by [147] Smith and Amoako-Adu (1999), where an analysis of stock prices of Canadian firmsrevealed that the mere appointment of a new and relatively inexperienced family member resulted in a loss toshareholders of -3.2 per cent over a mere -1 to +1 days surrounding the announcement. Allied to family succession is the issue of gender. While the literature on this topic is not as extensive as insome other areas directly related to BSP, there is evidence to suggest that women are rarely considered assuccession candidates ([108] Martin, 2001; [31] Dawley et al. , 2004), although in an examination of women'sbasketball coaching, [31] Dawley et al. (2004) found no performance difference between men and womensuccessors, particularly over the long term: it would appear that stereotypes may not be justified. In family firms,the preference for sons rather than daughters to succeed often means that provisions for daughters to becomesuccessors is neglected (see [32] Dumas, 1990), and in some cases, leading to intense sibling rivalries whichresult in harmful effects to both the organisation and family relationships ([49] Friedman, 1991; [65] Harvey andEvans, 1994). Gender discrimination has also been reported within specific companies, with several accounts ofwomen suffering double discrimination during succession planning - lack of constructive feedback about theirperformance, and lower confidence due to this lack of information ([102] McArthur and Phillips, 1994). Theclimate seems to be firmly that of male domination when it comes to succession. As for companies owned andrun by women, [17] Cadieux et al. (2002) found some evidence that females corroborate with their malecounterparts in terms of there being a lack of preparation for succession, but the genders differ with respect toindividual, organisational, and capital issues which influence their decisions towards BSP ([64] Harveston et al. ,1997). Organisations which do not face issues of family succession, encounter different challenges. Whereas familysuccession often provides a natural incentive for owners to plan for their succession (whether or not any actionis actually taken), owners/CEOs of publicly-owned firms or firms without an obvious next of kin are obliged tofind alternative motivation for implementing a succession plan. [39] Fiegener et al. (1994) and [160] Welsch(1993) have found that the key differences in BSP between family and non-family firms is that the formergenerally favour more personal, relationship-centred approaches to successor development, while the latterprefer formalised, task-oriented development approaches. Consequently, one likely advantage of BSP withinnon-family organisations is that certain biases towards family members (such as those mentioned above) canbe put aside, thus, in theory, making for more informed decisions. Examples of this in practice are typified bythe realisation of the importance of succession planning in many large corporations (see [36] Ellis, 2003): it hasled to direct success in companies such as McDonald's ([42] Flahardy, 2004) and WalMart ([84] Johnson,1998). However, according to some reports, the lack of it or seemingly ill-structured succession processes aremanifest in multinational heavyweights such as Coca Cola and Disney ([143] Sherman, 2003; [34] TheEconomist , 2004; [15] Business Week , 2005), and even in non-profit organisations ([133] Santora et al. , 1997;

21 October 2015 Page 5 of 22 ProQuest

[132] Santora and Sarros, 2001). Overall, non-family succession draws attention to a plethora of issues grounded in the general managementliterature including organisational change ([9] Beugelsdijk et al. , 2002; [60] Haddadj, 2003), organisationallearning ([157] Virany et al. , 1996), ethics and procedures ([155] Vancil, 1987), leadership ([5] Bass, 1999),shareholder/stockmarket reactions to CEO succession announcements ([30] Davidson et al. , 1993, [29] 2001),ideological influences of the outgoing CEO ([67] Haveman and Khaire, 2004), and a vast collection of otherprescriptive viewpoints. At the heart of these is the need for a clear understanding of the purpose of successionplanning within a company, and a precise definition of its future aspirations so that continued prosperity andtransformation can be directed by the succession plan, current management, and eventual successors ([162]Wolfe, 1996; [68] Hawkey, 2002). While it is clearly beyond the scope of this article to cover all businessaspects connected to BSP, the important message highlighted here is the psychological difference betweenfamily-motivated succession and that of pure corporate and financial interest. Yet the ultimate intention of bothparties remains the same - finding a suitable and competent successor, which in turn has led to a veritableproliferation of suggestions as to how BSP should be tackled in practice. These are considered in some detail ina later section. Legal, finance, and tax issues While psychological and corporate issues play a large role during succession planning, there are three otheressential elements that cannot be overlooked: legal, finance, and tax: Legal . [24] Co-Operatives (2003) provides a good outline of the legal obligations surrounding a businesstransfer in the UK. Depending on the type of business, which is essentially one of two categories - smaller,unincorporated companies (e.g. sole traders, partnerships, and charities), and larger, incorporatedorganisations (such as public limited companies and private-share companies) - there are various legalconsiderations which should be borne in mind when a business has new ownership. The specific procedurespertaining to these cases will not be repeated here, but the key issue is that succession within each individualtype of business entails different legal procedures as to how the business is transferred to a new owner. Thecomplexities of the process range from relatively straightforward transfer of assets via monetary payment to theoutgoing owner, to intricate planning of share transfers. A similar guide to legal issues is to be found in [37] FEE(2000), which despite being aimed at European businesses, covers issues relevant to BSP in general, drawsattention to the following key areas: - Transferring or changing the legal form of the business:- partnership;- limited company;- public limitedcompany; and- tax changes due to transfer/conversion. - Ensuring the legal continuity of the business:- via national schemes to promote succession (if available);- byretaining relationships built-up by the business (goodwill), especially those based on legal and contractualagreements;- by establishing a business continuity trust; and- by the use of family and business agreements.Forthe USA, [143] Sherman (2003) provides an extensive checklist to help companies maintain legal compliance,which is similar to the above - readers are advised to consult these, and advice from legal experts for specificissues applicable to their company. In addition to the legal aspects of actually transferring a business, a firmalso needs to take into account numerous employment legislations which affect BSP procedures. A summary ofUS legislation can be found in [127] Rothwell (2001), where of those specified, special attention is advised foremployee selection procedures to avoid possible grievances. Finance . A study by [40] File and Prince (1996) draws a salient distinction between succession planning(generally that of managing the task of leadership transition) and estate planning (transition of financialresources - i.e. ownership - and management of tax obligations). Crucially, organisations engaged insuccession planning must be aware that while it is imperative that psychological and managerial issues aredealt with, the transfer of tangible or financial assets can often determine the actual success or failure ofsuccession (see [40] File and Prince, 1996). There are two key elements of financial concern affecting the

21 October 2015 Page 6 of 22 ProQuest

succession process - a valuation of the monetary worth of the business for a possible sale, and methods ofraising adequate finance for the process. [68] Hawkey (2002) and [143] Sherman (2003) warn of the wideselection of methods available for valuation, all of which entail considerable variability in assessing how much abusiness is worth, not to mention other dependent factors such as ever-changing market conditions andbuyer/seller circumstances. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that business valuation has been termed an "art"rather than a science, acting merely as a guide as to how much a business is worth rather than the price abuyer would actually pay ([68] Hawkey, 2002). Although the valuation process is essential for both successorand incumbent during succession, it should be strictly reserved for financial professionals familiar withaccounting and financial concepts, as it is anything but straightforward. During valuation, factors surroundingpossible impediments to sale also need to be considered. [68] Hawkey (2002) distinguishes various types ofimpediment which threaten the prospect of selling a business and which vary in terms of their propensity toreduce its value. These include excessively high sale price, lack of profitability, excessive spending, lack ofsuitably trained staff, and poor business premises. As a result, any business should first seek to identify thefactors which undermine its value, then determine how they can be resolved. Raising adequate finance alsoforms an essential part of the transfer process. Three main types are identified in [24] Co-Operatives (2003),namely grants, debt, and equity, where the choice and availability usually depend on the legal entity of the givenbusiness (e.g. sole trader, partnership). BSP may appear to be an ongoing process requiring few additionalresources, but the evidence shows that transfers typically require significant financial investment, particularlywhen management buy-ins or buy-outs are on the agenda. While it is reported that smaller, family-basedtransfers are not generally threatened by financial constraints, many issues in relation to raising finance forsuccession remain problematic. Concerns which need to be addressed include the ease or otherwise ofobtaining finance for business transfer compared to start-up; whether finance providers consider risk to behigher or lower for existing or new businesses; the effects of business size, location, and sector; the extent towhich there is adequate access and awareness of sources of finance ([146] SBS, 2004). For take-overs, thecost may be even higher because the business may require strategic reorganisation, thus extra capital - theFEE reports a study carried out in Germany where the capital requirement for take-overs is 60 per cent higherthan for business start-ups ([37] FEE, 2000). In the UK, there is also some indication that firms in deprivedareas, places where the issue of business transfer is likely to represent much greater economic significance,may experience extra difficulty in obtaining finance ([146] SBS, 2004). As a result, European countries havedeveloped special funds to assist with business transfer, such as the Small Firms Loan Guarantee in the UK,and similar initiatives in countries such as Belgium, Germany, and France ([37] FEE, 2000; [146] SBS, 2004). Tax . Fiscal matters are arguably the most important financial component a company has to consider whenpreparing for business transfer. Given international variation in tax policies, and the many different types of taxand their effect on succession, detailed insights into specific procedures would form the subject of severalarticles. Such articles would have to cover capital gains tax, threshold/allowance/reduced rates, value-addedtax, and other taxes such as stamp duties and registration tax, gift/inheritance tax and double taxation (thetransfer of assets other than land which operate in more than one country) - all of which vary between countries.A useful description of some of these taxes and subtle differences between unincorporated and incorporatedbusinesses can be found in [24] Co-Operatives (2003). Nevertheless, a general view of the likely hurdles can beidentified. The [37] FEE (2000) divides taxation into two categories depending on the type of business transfer -disposal and retention. In the UK, a review of literature by the [146] SBS (2004) found that modifications in taxpolicies have helped to encourage succession in smaller businesses. In particular, the introduction of a CapitalGains Tax Taper Relief, which reduces tax on business assets from 40 per cent to 10 per cent, contributessignificantly towards transfer in SMEs. In the USA, similar initiatives of tax relief can be found for small family-owned businesses, but there are concerns regarding the amount of gift and estate taxes incurred by largecorporations during succession, which have led to severe difficulties in transferring assets to new owners ([28]

21 October 2015 Page 7 of 22 ProQuest

Dascher and Jens, 1999; [159] Weinstein, 2001; [143] Sherman, 2003). As a result, one area where there hasbeen increasing attention in the USA is in the distinction between C- or S-corporations - the former beingregular corporations, the latter having elected a different tax status with the American Internal Revenue Service.The advantage for companies with S-status is that they can bypass corporation tax, but they are subject totighter ownership restrictions ([156] Vandenack, 2004; [159] Weinstein, 2001). The importance of tax planningand the complexities surrounding various options and scenarios are reflected in extensive work by [143]Sherman (2003) and [161] White et al. (2004), and is a fervent encouragement for companies of any size andsector to seek the guidance of Chartered Public Accountants ([118] Parrish and Brown, 2002; [105] Malson,2004; [18] Capassakis, 2004). Other barriers against BSP While the aforementioned issues provide some insight into the barriers which are largely unavoidable during theBSP process, an examination of the literature reveals various additional obstacles that a firm is likely to face. A wide range of possible reasons for succession failure can be found in studies such as those by [48] Friedman(1986), [121] Perry (1995), [71] HR Focus (2001), [107] Martin et al. (2002), [77] Hutton (2003), [85] Karaelviand Hall (2003), and [112] Miller et al. (2003). On the whole, these outline common organisational shortfalls,such as the lack of strategic goals, lack of involvement by the CEO, poor business performance, and failure todevelop appropriate training and personnel initiatives. In SMEs, an early study by [20] Christensen (1953)specified key reasons such as limited number of suitable employees, lack of long-term planning, poor skills ofthe current incumbent to train new successors, and not wanting employees "to stand around" when they arebeing trained as successors. There is also a notable connection between succession planning and the age ofowners/managers: it seems that those in their late 50s are most vulnerable to succession failure ([103]McCarthy, 1996; [107] Martin et al. , 2002). However, in a recent survey of human resource professionals ([72]HR Focus , 2003), the most significant concerns in terms of practical application were: - cost of BSP and lack of resources; - other work/time demands; - overcoming resistance/company politics; and - need for performance management. Additional barriers also exist within family-firms, factors of which relate closely to the issues discussed inprevious sections. [75] Hubler (1999) and [52] Getz and Petersen (2004) identified the main barriers specific tofamily succession to be in the areas of: - a lack (or absence) of heirs; - life-stage incompatibilities (e.g. parents too old, children too young); - children do not want to take over the business; - children hold negative impressions of the business; - gender (prejudicial treatment of daughters as mentioned earlier); and - the business is not viable or inheritance taxes/legal issues make succession impractical. Readers with a special interest in family firms are also advised to see [62] Handler and Kram (1988) and [61]Handler (1994). It is therefore not without justification that BSP is considered in many quarters as a troublesome process.Despite the obvious advantages of a successful transfer, simply considering these difficulties might often besufficient to deter any organisation (family or otherwise) considering the idea of setting up a succession plan.Such are the degrees of complexity and uncertainty that [125] Rhodes (1988) and [88] Kirby and Lee (2004)actually advised against conventional succession planning, or at the very least, avoiding those showing anyindication of a variety of characteristics - such as those which are bureaucratic, inflexible, focused onhypothetical situations, and use succession and replacement charts. On the basis of some evidence in the areaof BSP, the advice above is not entirely without justification. As already seen, companies must consider and

21 October 2015 Page 8 of 22 ProQuest

eventually deal with a broad range of issues (legal, finance, and tax) even without any level of successionplanning. Added to problems of cost, time, and the need to develop appropriate management, BSP entails adistinct level of risk with comparatively little or even no guarantee of success. Even if a firm were properly tomanage all the various aspects, and to decide to formulate a succession plan, the problem of "how?" stillremains. Having said that, it should be noted that that various succession methods have been developed. Although [48]Friedman (1986) demonstrated that formal procedures do not necessarily lead to better reputation orperformance, formal succession plans have been shown, at least, raise the likelihood of success ([115] Naveen,2000). And, while it will be seen in the next section that the issues relating to devising a succession plan areeven more challenging than those already discussed, there nevertheless exist avenues leading to a holisticapproach. And even if these do not solve all succession problems, simply thinking about them may be half thebattle. Approaches to BSP There is no shortage of advice (proven or otherwise) in the literature on how BSP should be tackled in bothfamily and non-family firms. Such advice ranges from the largely anecdotal, to case studies based onexperience and evidence, and comparatively rare studies based on scientific methods. With respect toanecdotal studies, there does appear to be a general consistency in the advice given (even across a broadspectrum of industries). The central theme is to encourage firms to consider the factors associated with BSP,such as preparation, business planning, involvement of outgoing owners/CEOs, and continuous monitoring andevaluation of the succession process - see, for example, [35] Eisenman (1995); [19] Cashman (2001); [22]Cohn and Khurana (2003); [150] Strategic Direction (2004). The messages can also be found in case studies,with the difference being that they are supported by some degree of evidence. These include the attempt tohighlight best practice in succession ([6] Beeson, 1998, [7] 2000; [128] Rothwell, 2002; [85] Karaelvi and Hall,2003), insights into practices within specific companies ([106] Management Development Review , 1997; [86]Kiger, 2002; [2] Aitchison, 2004), and those of a largely descriptive nature ([127] Rothwell, 2001; [9] Beugelsdijket al. , 2002; [60] Haddadj, 2003; [79] Ibrahim et al. , 2004). From here, surveys and scientific studies such asthose of methodological development provide a somewhat deeper insight into specific issues. Those whichstand out are tools for leadership and competency development ([89] Klagge, 1996; [16] Cacioppe, 1998; [92]Kur and Bunning, 2002), and rare, but valuable studies into a validation of the suggested approaches to BSP.For instance, [98] Le Breton-Miller et al. (2004) and [123] Pitcher et al. (2000) provide useful analyses of themost popular factors within a succession plan; [158] Wang et al. (2004) analyse the relationship betweensuccession factors and business performance; and [33] Dyck et al. (2002) describe a more generic approachtowards the succession process. The reality is, however, that it is difficult to discern any general consensus, and thus to ascertain a precise,wholesome approach to succession planning. The lack of a common standard draws attention to research gaps,and the opportunity for existing evidence to be appraised and amalgamated into a single practical tool. While ithas been suggested that the reason for the lack of a single approach is that there is no "right" way forsuccession ([37] FEE, 2000; [127] Rothwell, 2001), an attempt can be made to elicit the techniques which arelikely to feature within it. Such work would at least help to contextualise the sheer volume of opinion. From anexamination of the available literature, it is clear that the BSP process consists of three main components,namely, consideration of BSP issues, development of a succession plan, and application of methods. Anexamination of the key findings for each of these components is given below. Advice on general issues Four points have been highlighted by the [37] FEE (2000) as requiring careful consideration during succession,and which form a useful summary of issues described in previous sections. These are: Psychological and business issues. Examples include:

21 October 2015 Page 9 of 22 ProQuest

- family and non-family issues; - gender; and - business planning and objectives (see [162] Wolfe, 1996; [68] Hawkey, 2002). Legal issues: - sole-trader, partnerships, limited company; and - legislation regarding the succession of these businesses. Financial issues: - business valuation; and - methods of funding for business transfer. Tax issues: burden of tax during a transfer (e.g. capital gains, inheritance, VAT). Development of succession plan It is in this area of BSP that one finds the most diverse range of advice. On the whole, succession plans tend tobe an expansion of the BSP issues given above, but with the distinction that action is encouraged. The advicevaries according to the target audience - for example, a plan devised by and for law firms ([95], [96], [97] LawOffice Management &Administration Report , 2001, 2003, 2005) will obviously be different from one developedby and for healthcare professionals ([76] Husting and Alderman, 2001; [1] Abrams, 2002; [50] Fruth, 2003).There is also a great deal of variability when it comes to the size of a succession plan: [98] Le Breton-Miller etal. 's (2004) extensive study offers a list of over 50 factors which should be taken on board, and [141] Shelly(2001) describes a 30-item list, as opposed to the comparatively modest five-factor lists given by [1] Abrams(2002) and [87] Kindley (2002). However, the approach suggested by [123] Pitcher et al. (2000) (describedpreviously by [54] Gorden and Rosen (1981)) encapsulates what a plan should consist of during the BSPprocess: - antecedents -, e.g. pre-succession company assessment and valuation, nature of current owner/CEOdeparture, current owner/CEO characteristics; - events - leadership development, successor characteristics, finding a suitable successor; and - consequences - post-succession company performance, stock-market reactions, leadership evaluation. Particular attention should be placed on an assessment of the current business to determine its fitness forsuccession (antecedent). In essence, companies considering succession need to evaluate their current positionand the characteristics of the business to see whether or not it is actually the best exit option - some businessesare, for all practical purposes, more suited for closure. This emphasis on preliminary assessment is stronglyadvised by the work carried out by, amongst others, [37] FEE (2000), [123] Pitcher et al. (2000), [127] Rothwell(2001), [107] Martin et al. (2002), [24] Co-Operatives (2003), and [143] Sherman (2003), the techniques ofwhich are examined in the next section. With respect to timeframe, it is suggested that thorough plans requiremany years to develop - typically between three and ten years before the owner is due or likely to leave ([141]Shelly, 2001; [68] Hawkey, 2002; [107] Martin et al. , 2002; [114] Murray, 2003; [146] SBS, 2004), while morerough-and-ready plans may drawn up in around 20 weeks ([24] Co-Operatives, 2003). In addition, it is reportedthat it takes up to 12 to 18 months for new managers to adjust to the new working environment and becomeproductive ([90] Kransdorff, 1996; [165] Yapp, 2004). The result of this evidence, therefore, is that there is noexact specification for a succession plan - it simply needs to be appropriate to the firm in question. Application of methods In contrast to the abundance of literature on various aspects of BSP, comparatively little can be found onscientific and validated methods for its application, a problem which is commonly reported in the literature - seeextensive studies and reviews by [54] Gorden and Rosen (1981); [107] Martin et al. (2002); [51] Garman andGlawe (2004); [146] SBS (2004). The following is a brief account, limited to where there is a good level ofmethodological insight, of methods pertaining to each of the three stages within the succession plan: Antecedents . As highlighted above, an appropriate assessment of the business should be carried out before

21 October 2015 Page 10 of 22 ProQuest

the application of any succession plan. As a suitable starting point, [107] Martin et al. (2002) describe a practicalmethod of identifying the succession characteristics of an SME by measuring three factors - businessobjectives, assets, and skills and expertise - referred to as the succession and exit position (SEP). Similarfactors are also detailed in [24] Co-Operatives (2003). [10] Bjuggren and Sund (2001) and [68] Hawkey (2002)also provide useful insights into how best to determine an appropriate exit strategy, offering a greater emphasison fiscal aspects (such as those listed in the above sections). On personnel, [162] Wolfe (1996) and [127]Rothwell (2001) draw attention to the routine succession of positions within an organisation, which need to beexamined rigorously in order to reduce the wastage of trying to fill vacancies that are no longer necessary. Thestrength of these techniques is to enable businesses to see if succession planning is likely to be the bestapproach, or whether an alternative exit strategy may be more appropriate. In addition, a formal valuation of thefinancial worth of a business should be carried out by financial professionals, and possible impediments to saleneed to be considered (see discussions above). It is also necessary at this stage to consider the issues offamily or non-family successors as mentioned above, and more precisely, how to put methods into action foridentifying and preparing a likely candidate. Again, there is only a sparse collection of formal methods for thispurpose, but [162] Wolfe (1996) and [124] Pynes (2004) examine how human resource management (HRM)practices should be merged with succession planning in order to encourage effective transfers. In addition, [137]Sharma and Irving (2005) present a useful summary of four key antecedents which underlie the commitment ofsuccessors - affective (desire), normative (obligation), calculative (opportunity costs), and imperative (need) -and produce varying levels succession effectiveness and company performance. Specific to family successionare approaches such as encouraging active involvement of family members (see [149] Stavrou, 1998), anoutline of issues which may affect heirs' decisions to take over the business ([149] Stavrou, 1998), and aconsideration of critical factors which can be used to test suitability of potential successors before actualimplementation of BSP ([4] Barach and Ganitsky, 1995). Events . The one area which appears to rise above all others with respect to methodology is that of leadershipdevelopment. While no attempt has been made here to delve into the intricacies of this field, as it is simplybeyond the scope of this article, we offer a brief examination of the methods most pertinent to BSP. Typicalapproaches for leadership development include elaborate planning, implementation of training initiatives, andassessments of employees for leadership qualities ([16] Cacioppe, 1998; [92] Kur and Bunning, 2002; [94]Larsson et al. , 2003). For this, [127] Rothwell (2001) describes extensive job and person assessment for thedevelopment of potential successors in order to determine the best succession options. These can be dividedinto "traditional" methods of moving existing employees within an organisation to new positions as and whenrequired, and "alternative" approaches such as job rotations (employees filling various positions for shortperiods to help them gain experience), talent pools (spreading the role by appointing many employees acrossmore positions), and outsourcing. Meanwhile, [11], [12] Blake and Mouton's (1964, 1985) managerial grid isalso an interesting application, which helps to identify and assess potential leaders, as well as provide insightinto how various managerial styles shape the running of an organisation. Assessment aside, [44] Fosberg andNelson (1999) have shown that using a dual leadership structure - i.e. where different people hold the chair ofthe board and CEO positions - can help to reduce costs and facilitate an orderly succession. Another techniqueis relay succession. Briefly, this involves identifying a successor in advance, who is then appointed to a seniorposition and trained by the incumbent owner/CEO, with the obvious advantage that it promotes a more gradualand seamless transfer ([155] Vancil, 1987; [142] Shen and Cannella, 2003; [131] Santora, 2004). While a formalmethod for its application is yet to be developed, some evidence to be found in the literature suggests that itleads to better post-succession business performance ([168] Zhang and Rajagopalan, 2004). To this end, [33]Dyck et al. (2002) specify a four-stage process as a framework for relay-succession: sequence (skills andmanagement styles), timing (time elapsed since transfer of leadership), baton passing (mode of succession),and communication (trust, shared vision, quality of communication). Another method worthy of attention is the

21 October 2015 Page 11 of 22 ProQuest

sociometric technique (also referred to in succession literature as 180- and 360-degree feedback). It involvesasking people within a specific group to nominate and assess other individuals in the group, and while it is notnew, it does merit more research in the context of BSP. Its greatest strength is that it enables any organisationto perform an assessment of internal candidates who are considered by the entire firm to be the best successorbased on key criteria, and hence reduces the risk of subjective decisions by a few key individuals. [89] Klagge(1996) illustrates how sociometry may be used to help identify potential succession candidates according toleadership qualities. A similar approach has also been described specifically for family firms, where the parentand child assess each other in order to help determine the readiness of potential successors to undertakeleadership - see [109] Matthews et al. (1999). Benchmarking for best practices is also an important technique tobe included as it encourages companies to take into consideration the successful aspects of BSP which havebeen implemented by other businesses ([162] Wolfe, 1996). The difficulty with this approach, however, is that itrequires direct information (usually lengthy interviews and discussions) from those who are thought to be "thebest" at succession planning. Clearly, while some insight might be gleaned from the literature (as is the case inthis article), companies may not always be entirely forthcoming when it comes to sharing the secrets behindtheir success. Consequences . Having planned for a timely succession, the final stage of the plan involves an assessment ofits effectiveness. While it is always difficult to obtain a true indication of "success", particularly over a relativelyshort timeframe, and it being virtually impossible to compare results with an alternative strategy (such aschoosing a different successor, or employing a different business strategy), methods are available to providesome insight. Following from the issue of leadership development discussed in the previous section, [11], [12]Blake and Mouton's (1964, 1985) grid theory can be used to evaluate leadership qualities. However, while theapproach can provide a useful assessment of the qualities of new and old leaders based on previous planningand execution, there remains the tricky issue of whether or not succession has actually led to an increase incompany profit, or at any rate, profit is not less than previously. Consequently, approaches which generallydominate evaluation proceedings are those demonstrating the use of statistical techniques (commonly ascorrelation measures) to analyse the effect of succession factors (such as preparation, family influence, andplanning activities) on post-transfer performance ([167] Zajac, 1990; [120] Pecotich et al. , 1998; [158] Wang etal. , 2004). Specific to family firms, [66] Harvey and Evans (1995) draw attention to issues which may need tobe resolved on post-succession, including assessing and dealing with conflicts, repairing relationships in thefamily, defining new roles, and continuous monitoring of the business and the family. Allied to these are genericmethods of assessing the effects of succession on stock-market performance in larger corporations ([30]Davidson et al. , 1993, [29] 2001; [147] Smith and Amoako-Adu, 1999). However, amid these techniques, [127]Rothwell (2001) details the link between BSP and training evaluation, and the need to translate existing HRMevaluation techniques into a generic, formal assessment procedure. He advises that assessment should consistof four levels - customer satisfaction, programme progress, effective employee placements, and organisationalresults. Decisions also have to be made on how assessment is carried out, whether anecdotally (case by case -, e.g. individual jobs, specific problem areas), periodically (analysis of an individual component of a successionplan at different times), or programmatically (in-depth, objective analysis of the whole process) (see [127]Rothwell, 2001). In the absence of a general consensus, these examples provide a taste of how formalevaluation studies can be carried out. In summary, it can be seen that the various BSP processes described inthis article contain the elements shown in Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. Summary and conclusions This article has offered a broad reflection on the key themes which emerge from the BSP literature. Issuesaddressed have included the context in which business succession takes place, psychological, legal, financial,and fiscal matters, and where available, the key methods used in the BSP process. It can be seen that there isa lack of research in this area, in particular, on established and reliable methodology for the entire BSP process.

21 October 2015 Page 12 of 22 ProQuest

It is also evident that BSP is not an individual or small-group effort. It requires continuous investment of time,resources, and support by the given company as a whole, and input and advice from financial and legal experts.But even if formal plans are developed and implemented, they will simply raise the chance of success and notguarantee it. The most telling issue of all, however, is that the advice available in the literature clearly lacks consensus. Notonly are there stark differences between advice in general management articles, but also within texts where thetopic of BSP is considered in great detail. A good example is that of [162] Wolfe (1996) compared with that of[68] Hawkey (2002). Wolfe certainly provides a practical approach towards succession planning, where issuesare made transparent and actions are encouraged. Yet Hawkey, good on financial aspects, presents acompletely different viewpoint. Succession planning is generally considered to be a unique, case-by-caseprocess, where a one-size-fits-all mentality is simply not appropriate, and thus the wide variation in viewpointscannot be avoided. It also covers a large number of topics, from finance to law, leadership to human resources,training to performance measurement - little or no area is excluded. No text on the topic can therefore ever besufficient to cover all related issues, just as no individual can purport to be proficient in each and every area.This goes some way as to explaining the possible shortfalls of academic work in BSP, as the key issue is notthe difficulty of conducting the necessary research, but how all the different fields of study can be linkedtogether effectively, and crucially, how the process can be made into a practical reality for the business world. As with the study of kinship, succession planning simply cannot be subjected to one golden rule, just as noamount of planning can ensure children turn out exactly the way their parents want them to. It therefore remainsa strong argument that BSP can never be adequate to guarantee seamless, successful transfers. However, aswe have seen, the BSP umbrella contains individual processes, all of which can be controlled to a degree bycertain methods. It is to be hoped, at the very least, that the degree of uncertainty associated with successionplanning can be reduced. In particular, for small companies without the resources of large corporations, theevidence provided here should go some way to promoting continued survival and prosperity. It cannot be takento be a generic plan for succession planning, but it is hoped that it provides an appropriate starting point toenable the mass of information to be put into a cohesive context. References 1. Abrams, M. (2002), "Succeeding at succession planning", Health Forum Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 27-9. 2. Aitchison, C. (2004), "Succession planning at the Dixons Group", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 24-7. 3. Arlinghaus, B. (2000), "Succession planning: an interview with Ohio CPAs", The Ohio CPA Journal, Vol. 59No. 2, pp. 24-30. 4. Barach, J. and Ganitsky, J. (1995), "Successful succession in family business", Family Business Review, Vol.8 No. 2, pp. 131-55. 5. Bass, B. (1999), "Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership", EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32. 6. Beeson, J. (1998), "Succession planning: building the management corps", Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No. 5,pp. 61-6. 7. Beeson, J. (2000), "Succession planning: leading edge practices: what the best companies are doing",Across the Board, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 38-41. 8. Berman Brown, R. and Coverley, R. (1999), "Succession planning in family businesses: a study from EastAnglia, UK", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 93-7. 9. Beugelsdijk, S., Slangen, A. and van Herpen, M. (2002), "Shapes of organizational change: the case ofHeineken Inc.", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 311-26. 10. Bjuggren, P-O. and Sund, L.-G. (2001), "Strategic decision making in intergenerational successions ofsmall- and medium-size family-owned businesses", Family Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-24.

21 October 2015 Page 13 of 22 ProQuest

11. Blake, R. and Mouton, J. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. 12. Blake, R. and Mouton, J. (1985), "Presidential (grid) styles", Training and Development Journal, Vol. 39 No.3, pp. 30-4. 13. Bunce, V. (1979), "Leadership succession and policy innovation in the Soviet Republics", ComparativePolitics, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 379-401. 14. Bunce, V. (1980), "The succession connection: policy cycles and political change in the Soviet Union andEastern Europe", The American Political Science Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 966-77. 15. Business Week (2005), "Succession screw-ups", Vol. 3915 No. 84. 16. Cacioppe, R. (1998), "An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership developmentprograms", Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 44-53. 17. Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J. and Hugron, P. (2002), "Succession in women-owned family businesses: a casestudy", Family Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-30. 18. Capassakis, E. (2004), "Divorce issues and business succession planning", The Tax Advisor, Vol. 35 No.12, pp. 744-9. 19. Cashman, K. (2001), "Succession leadership: is your organization prepared?", Strategy and Leadership,Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 32-3. 20. Christensen, C. (1953), Management Succession in Small and Growing Enterprises, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA. 21. Chung, W. and Yuen, K. (2003), "Management succession: a case for Chinese family-owned business",Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 643-55. 22. Cohn, J. and Khurana, R. (2003), "How to succeed at CEO succession planning", Directorship, Vol. 29 No.5, pp. 10-16, 24. 23. Compensation &Benefits for Law Offices (2004), "Succession planning: why law firm managers must alsobecome involved", Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 12-15. 24. Co-Operatives (2003), "Delivering employee and community buyouts", available at: www.co-opunion.coop/live/cme145.htm (accessed August 2005). 25. Courter, E. (2003), "Next in line", Credit Union Management, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 22-6. 26. Cromie, S., Adams, J., Dunn, B. and Reid, R. (1999), "Family firms in Scotland and Northern Ireland: anempirical investigation", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 253-66. 27. d'Arbon, T., Duignan, P. and Duncan, D. (2002), "Planning for future leadership of schools: an Australianstudy", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 468-85. 28. Dascher, P. and Jens, W. Jr (1999), "Family business succession planning", Business Horizons, Vol. 42 No.5, pp. 2-4. 29. Davidson, W. III, Nemec, C. and Worrell, D. (2001), "Succession planning vs agency theory: a test of Harrisand Helfat's interpretation of plurality announcement market returns", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22,pp. 179-84. 30. Davidson, W. III, Worrell, D. and Dutia, D. (1993), "The stock market effects of CEO succession in bankruptfirms", Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 517-33. 31. Dawley, D., Hoffman, J. and Smith, A. (2004), "Leader succession: does gender matter?", The Leadership&Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 678-90. 32. Dumas, C. (1990), "Preparing the new CEO: managing the father-daughter succession process in familybusinesses", Family Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 169-81. 33. Dyck, B., Mauws, M., Starke, F. and Mischke, G. (2002), "Passing the baton: the importance of sequence,timing, technique and communication in executive succession", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 143-62. 34. (The ) Economist (2004), "Passing the baton", Vol. 373 No. 8397, pp. 57-8.

21 October 2015 Page 14 of 22 ProQuest

35. Eisenman, E. (1995), "Succession and the reluctant CEO", Corporate Board, Vol. 16 No. 90, pp. 14-18. 36. Ellis, K. (2003), "Making waves", Training, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 16-20. 37. (The) European Federation of Accountants (FEE) (2000), "Keeping it in the family. SME family businesssuccession", available at: www.fee.be/publications/main.htm (accessed August 2005). 38. Fairweather, V. (2000), "Succession planning pays off", Civil Engineering, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 56-9. 39. Fiegener, M., Brown, B., Prince, R. and File, K. (1994), "A comparison of successor development in familyand nonfamily businesses", Family Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 313-29. 40. File, K. and Prince, R. (1996), "Attributions for family business failure: the heir's perspective", FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 171-84. 41. Fink, D. and Brayman, C. (2004), "Principals' succession and educational change", Journal of EducationalAdministration, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 431-49. 42. Flahardy, C. (2004), "CEO's death highlights need for succession planning", Corporate Legal Times, Vol. 14No. 153, pp. 18-19. 43. Fortes, M. (1970), Kinship and the Social Order, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 44. Fosberg, R. and Nelson, M. (1999), "Leadership structure and firm performance", International Review ofFinancial Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-96. 45. Fox, R. (1967), Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective, Penguin, Harmondsworth. 46. Fox, R. (1993), Reproduction and Succession: Studies in Anthropology, Law, and Society, TransactionPublishers, New Brunswick, NJ. 47. Frances, B. (1993), "Family business succession planning: a 10-step process can make it easier", Journal ofAccountancy, Vol. 176 No. 2, pp. 49-51. 48. Friedman, S. (1986), "Succession systems in large corporations: characteristics and correlates ofperformance", Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 191-213. 49. Friedman, S. (1991), "Sibling relationships and intergenerational succession in family firms", FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-20. 50. Fruth, R. (2003), "Begin succession planning today", Nursing Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, p. 12. 51. Garman, A. and Glawe, J. (2004), "Succession planning", Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 119-28. 52. Getz, D. and Petersen, T. (2004), "Identifying industry-specific barriers to inheritance in small familybusinesses", Family Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 259-76. 53. Giambatista, R. (2004), "Jumping through hoops: a longitudinal study of leader life cycles in the NBA", TheLeadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 607-24. 54. Gorden, G. and Rosen, N. (1981), "Critical factors in leadership succession", Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, Vol. 27, pp. 227-54. 55. Gouldner, A. (1954), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy: Case Study of Modern Factory Administration,Collier-Mac, New York, NY. 56. Grady, T. (2002), "Succession strategies keep it moving", Automotive Body Repair News, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp.28-32. 57. Grau, D. and Grable, W. (2004), "Succession or transition", Financial Planning, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 89-91. 58. Greengard, S. (2001), "Why succession planning can't wait", Workforce, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 34-8. 59. Guest, R. (1962), "Managerial succession in complex organizations", The American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 47-56. 60. Haddadj, S. (2003), "Organization change and the complexity of succession: a longitudinal case study fromFrance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-53. 61. Handler, W. (1994), "Succession in family business: a review of the research", Family Business Review,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 133-57.

21 October 2015 Page 15 of 22 ProQuest

62. Handler, W. and Kram, K. (1988), "Succession in family firms: the problem of resistance", Family BusinessReview, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 361-81. 63. Haneveld, W. and Stegeman, A. (2005), "Crop succession requirements in agricultural production planning",European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 166 No. 2, pp. 406-29. 64. Harveston, P., Davis, P. and Lyden, J. (1997), "Succession planning in family business: the impact of ownergender", Family Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 373-96. 65. Harvey, M. and Evans, R. (1994), "The impact of timing and mode of entry on successor development andsuccessful succession", Family Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 221-36. 66. Harvey, M. and Evans, R. (1995), "Life after succession in the family business: is it really the end ofproblems?", Family Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 3-16. 67. Haveman, H. and Khaire, M. (2004), "Survival beyond succession? The contingent impact of foundersuccession on organizational failure", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, pp. 437-63. 68. Hawkey, J. (2002), Exit Strategy Planning: Grooming Your Business for Sale or Succession, GowerPublishing, Aldershot. 69. Headd, B. (2003), "Redefining business success: distinguishing between closure and failure", SmallBusiness Economics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-61. 70. Howorth, C., Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2004), "Buyouts, information asymmetry and the familymanagement dyad", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 509-34. 71. HR Focus (2001), "Prepare today for your company's tomorrow", Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 3-4. 72. HR Focus (2003), "Exclusive survey: HR has many ideas but little support for succession preparation", Vol.80 No. 7, pp. S1-S4. 73. HR Focus (2004), "A succession planning model that can work for you", Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 5-6. 74. Huang, T. (1999), "Who shall follow? Factors affecting the adoption of succession plans in Taiwan", LongRange Planning, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 609-16. 75. Hubler, T. (1999), "Ten most prevalent obstacles to family-business succession planning", Family BusinessReview, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 117-21. 76. Husting, P. and Alderman, M. (2001), "Replacement ready?", Nursing Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 45-50. 77. Hutton, D. (2003), "Succession planning: dress rehearsal for the understudies", Trustee, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp.14-22. 78. Ibarra, P. (2005), "Succession planning: an idea whose time has come", Public Management, Vol. 87 No. 1,pp. 18-24. 79. Ibrahim, A., McGuire, J., Soufani, K. and Poutziouris, P. (2004), "Patterns in strategy formation in a familyfirm", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-40. 80. Institute of Directors (IOD) (1996), Succession Management in Family Companies, Kogan Page, London. 81. Janjuha-Jivraj, S. and Woods, A. (2002), "The art of 'good conversations': a strategy to negotiatesuccession within South Asian family firms", Strategic Change, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 425-34. 82. Johnson, E. (2004a), "CEO succession: you can't afford to miss a beat", Credit Union Magazine, Vol. 70 No.6, pp. 40-4. 83. Johnson, G. (2004b), "Follow the leader", Fire Chief, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 136-7. 84. Johnson, J. (1998), "Room at the top: executive succession, a growing concern", Discount Merchandiser,Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 27-32. 85. Karaelvi, A. and Hall, D. (2003), "Growing leaders for turbulent times: is succession planning up to thechallenge", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 62-79. 86. Kiger, P. (2002), "Succession planning keeps WellPoint competitive", Workforce, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 50-4. 87. Kindley, M. (2002), "Grooming your successor", Network World, Vol. 19 No. 29, p. 74.

21 October 2015 Page 16 of 22 ProQuest

88. Kirby, D. and Lee, T. (2004), "Research note: succession management in family firms in northeast England",Family Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 75-85. 89. Klagge, J. (1996), "Defining, discovering and developing personal leadership in organizations", Leadership&Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 38-45. 90. Kransdorff, A. (1996), "Succession planning in a fast-changing world", Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 30-4. 91. Kubilus, N. (2003), "Grooming the CIO's successor", Computerworld, Vol. 37 No. 51, p. 42. 92. Kur, E. and Bunning, R. (2002), "Assuring corporate leadership for the future", Journal of ManagementDevelopment, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 761-79. 93. Lanphear, S. (2003), "Succession plans: ready, set, hire", Credit Union Executive Newsletter, Vol. 29 No.25, pp. 1-2. 94. Larsson, G., Carlstedt, L., Andersson, J., Andersson, L., Danielsson, E., Johansson, A., Johansson, E. andRobertsson, I. (2003), "A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development", Leadership&Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 16-25. 95. Law Office Management &Administration Report (2001), "Succession planning tactics midsize law firmsmust consider", Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 3-5. 96. Law Office Management &Administration Report (2003), "Succession planning basics to transition clientseffectively", Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 2-3. 97. Law Office Management &Administration Report (2005), "Top must-haves for succession planning", Vol. 5No. 2, pp. 11-12. 98. Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D. and Steier, L. (2004), "Toward an integrative model of effective FOBsuccession", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 305-28. 99. Lee, K., Lim, G. and Lim, W. (2003), "Family business succession: appropriation risk and choice ofsuccessor", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 657-66. 100. Lieblein, R. and Wevodau, S. (2003), "Agency succession planning: options and opportunities", NationalUnderwriter/Life &Health Financial Services, Vol. 107 No. 45, pp. 24-5. 101. Liu, J. and Ashton, P. (1995), "Individual-based simulation models for forest succession and management",Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 73, pp. 157-75. 102. McArthur, C. and Phillips, J. (1994), "Keeping donkeys out of the boardroom", Executive Development,Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 13-15. 103. McCarthy, E. (1996), "Planning for your succession: are you ready?", Journal of Financial Planning, Vol. 9No. 5, pp. 52-8. 104. McKenna, B. (1996), "Succession planning for husband and wife teams", Franchising World, Vol. 28 No. 2,p. 45. 105. Malson, D. (2004), "Handling closely held businesses", CPA Wealth Provider, October, pp. 30-2. 106. Management Development Review (1997), "The Dow Chemical Company's formula for succession", Vol.10 Nos 1/2/3, pp. 110-1. 107. Martin, C., Martin, L. and Mabbett, A. (2002), SME Ownership Succession - Business Support and PolicyImplications, Small Business Service, London. 108. Martin, L. (2001), "More jobs for the boys? Succession planning in SMEs", Women in ManagementReview, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 222-31. 109. Matthews, C., Moore, T. and Fialko, A. (1999), "Succession in the family firm: a cognitive categorizationperspective", Family Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 159-70. 110. Mauzy, D. (1993), "Leadership succession in Singapore: the best laid plans", Asian Survey, Vol. 33 No. 12,pp. 1163-74. 111. May, H. (2003), "A board succession plan that works", Credit Union Directors Newsletter, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp.

21 October 2015 Page 17 of 22 ProQuest

1-2. 112. Miller, D., Steier, L. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003), "Lost in time: intergenerational succession, change,and failure in family business", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 513-31. 113. Morris, M., Williams, R. and Nel, D. (1996), "Factors influencing family business succession", InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 68-81. 114. Murray, B. (2003), "The succession transition process: a longitudinal perspective", Family BusinessReview, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-33. 115. Naveen, L. (2000), "Management turnover and succession planning in firms", Georgia State University,available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=219931 (accessed August 2005). 116. Papiernik, R. (2000), "Best insurance against executive loss is succession planning", Nation's RestaurantNews, Vol. 34 No. 39, pp. 128-34. 117. Parkin, R. (1997), Kinship: An Introduction to Basic Concepts, Blackwell, Oxford. 118. Parrish, S. and Brown, J. (2002), "Letting business owners exit in style", National Underwriter/Life andHealth Financial Services, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 11-12. 119. Peay, R. and Dyer, G. Jr (1989), "Power orientations of entrepreneurs and succession planning", Journalof Small Business Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 47-52. 120. Pecotich, A., Tshung, H. and Carroll, B. (1998), "The effects of management succession in retail servicebanking", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 199-208. 121. Perry, P. (1995), "Succession success", American Nurseryman, Vol. 181 No. 8, pp. 63-71. 122. Personnel Today (2002), "Five steps to signing up an effective manager", 4 June, pp. 8-9. 123. Pitcher, P., Chreim, S. and Kisfalvi, V. (2000), "CEO succession research: methodological bridges overtroubled waters", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 625-48. 124. Pynes, J. (2004), "The implementation of workforce and succession planning in the public sector", PublicPersonnel Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 389-404. 125. Rhodes, D. (1988), "Succession planning - overweight and underperforming", The Journal of BusinessStrategy, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 62-4. 126. Rollins, G. (2003), "Succession planning: laying the foundations for smooth transitions and effectiveleaders", Healthcare Executive, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 14-21. 127. Rothwell, W. (2001), Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talentfrom Within, 2nd ed., AMACOM, New York, NY. 128. Rothwell, W. (2002), "Putting success into your succession planning", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol.23 No. 3, pp. 32-7. 129. Rowe, W. and Rankin, D. (2003), "Leadership succession: what can we learn from National HockeyLeague?", Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 1-5. 130. Rush, M. (1962), "The Khrushchev succession problem", World Politics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 259-82. 131. Santora, J. (2004), "Passing the baton: does CEO relay succession work best?", Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 157-9. 132. Santora, J. and Sarros, J. (2001), "CEO succession in nonprofit community-based organizations: is thereroom for insiders at the top?", Career Development International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 107-10. 133. Santora, J., Clemens, R. and Sarros, J. (1997), "Views from the top: foundation CEOs look at leadershipsuccession", Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 108-15. 134. Schaeffer, B. (1999), "Succession planning for franchisees: save taxes with valuation discounts",Franchising World, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 34-5. 135. Schaeffer, B. (2001), "Best practices in succession planning for franchisees", Franchising World, Vol. 33No. 5, pp. 35-6. 136. Schall, E. (1997), "Public-sector succession: a strategic approach to sustaining innovation", Public

21 October 2015 Page 18 of 22 ProQuest

Administration Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 4-10. 137. Sharma, P. and Irving, P. (2005), "Four bases of family business successor commitment: antecedents andconsequences", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 13-33. 138. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. and Chua, J. (2003), "Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process infamily firms", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 667-87. 139. Sharma, P., Chua, J. and Chrisman, J. (2000), "Perceptions about the extent of succession planning inCanadian family firms", Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 233-44. 140. Sheahan, M. (2004), "Pass the baton", Venture Capital Journal, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 22-30. 141. Shelly, D. Jr (2001), "Business succession: how prepared are you?", Construction Law and Business, Vol.2 No. 3, pp. 25-7. 142. Shen, W. and Cannella, A. (2003), "Will succession planning increase shareholder wealth? Evidence frominvestor reactions to relay CEO successions", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 191-8. 143. Sherman, A. (2003), Parting Company: Innovative Strategies to Plan for Succession, Manage theTransition, Sell or Transfer Your Business, Kiplinger Books, Washington, DC. 144. Small Business Service (SBS) (2003a), "Statistical press release - SME statistics regions 2003", availableat: www.sbs.gov.uk/ (accessed August 2005). 145. Small Business Service (SBS) (2003b), "SME statistics 2003" (Excel spreadsheet), available at:www.sbs.gov.uk/ (accessed August 2005). 146. Small Business Service (SBS) (2004), "Passing the baton - encouraging successful business transfers:evidence and stakeholder opinion", available at: www.sbs.gov.uk/ (accessed August 2005). 147. Smith, B. and Amoako-Adu, B. (1999), "Management succession and financial performance of familycontrolled firms", Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 341-68. 148. Snyder, M. (2003), "Take your leave", Director, Vol. 56 No. 6, p. 17. 149. Stavrou, E. (1998), "A four factor model: a guide to planning next generation involvement in the familyfirm", Family Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-42. 150. Strategic Direction (2004), "Who's next in line?", Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 30-2. 151. Taylor, S. (2003), "Successful firms plan for succession with care and plenty of time", Of Counsel, Vol. 22No. 11, pp. 22-3. 152. Therrien, D. (2004), "Running in the family", CMA Management, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 12-13. 153. Torrisi-Mokwa, J. (2003), "When people matter: how to put success back in succession planning - fiveways firms can effectively prepare the next generation of leaders", Journal of Tax Practice Management, Vol. 2No. 6, pp. 11-12. 154. Trow, D. (1961), "Executive succession in small companies", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6 No.2, pp. 228-39. 155. Vancil, R. (1987), Passing the Baton: Managing the Process of CEO Succession, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA. 156. Vandenack, M. (2004), "Problems to avoid when planning for the succession of an S-corporation", NationalUnderwriter/Life &Health Financial Services, Vol. 108 No. 7, pp. 43-4. 157. Virany, B., Tushman, M. and Romanelli, E. (1996), "Executive succession and organization outcomes inturbulent environments", in Cohen, M. and Sproull, L. (Eds), Organizational Learning, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA. 158. Wang, Y., Watkins, D., Harris, N. and Spicer, K. (2004), "The relationship between succession issues andbusiness performance: evidence from UK family SMEs", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour&Research, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-84. 159. Weinstein, S. (2001), "All in the family", Progressive Grocer, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 91-3. 160. Welsch, J. (1993), "The impact of family ownership and involvement on the process of management

21 October 2015 Page 19 of 22 ProQuest

succession", Family Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-54. 161. White, W., Krinke, T. and Geller, D. (2004), "Family business succession planning: devising an overallstrategy", Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 67-86. 162. Wolfe, R. (1996), Systematic Succession Planning: Building Leadership from Within, Crisp Publications,Fredericton. 163. Wolosky, H. (2003), "Succession planning: can a family member cut it?", Practical Accountant, Vol. 36 No.5, pp. 38-40. 164. Yancey, G. (2001), "Succession planning creates quality leadership", Credit Union Executive Journal, Vol.41 No. 6, pp. 24-7. 165. Yapp, M. (2004), "How can role transition management transform your company?", Industrial andCommercial Training, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 110-2. 166. Yoswick, J. (2004), "Succession planning: keeping it in the family", Automotive Body Repair News, Vol. 43No. 11, pp. 70-6. 167. Zajac, E. (1990), "CEO selection, succession, compensation and firm performance: a theoreticalintegration and empirical analysis", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 217-30. 168. Zhang, Y. and Rajagopalan, N. (2004), "When the known devil is better than an unknown god: an empiricalstudy of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.47 No. 4, pp. 483-500. Appendix About the authors: Barry Ip is a Research Officer in the School of Business and Economics, University of Wales Swansea. Hiscurrent research is on the topic of business succession planning (BSP) in a project funded by the EuropeanSocial Fund. The project aims to evaluate and disseminate best practice in BSP to promote business survivaland prosperity among the SME community. His previous work includes a major review of evidence on servicesfor gastrointestinal diseases in the UK. Barry Ip is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:b.ip@swan.ac.uk Gabriel Jacobs is Professor of Business Informatics in the School of Management at the University of WalesSwansea. He has led two major European-funded projects, the first of which helped provide managementtraining and resources to small to medium-sized businesses in Wales, the second to evaluate and disseminatebest-practice in business succession. In the late 1980s, he was Director of European Operations for a major UKpublisher of educational software. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce. AuthorAffiliation Barry Ip, School of Business and Economics, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK Gabriel Jacobs, School of Business and Economics, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK Illustration Figure 1: General structure of the BSP process Table I: Terms used in electronic search Subject: Studies; Small business; Succession planning; Family owned businesses; Classification: 9130: Experimental/theoretical; 9520: Small business; 2310: Planning Publication title: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Pages: 326-350

21 October 2015 Page 20 of 22 ProQuest

Publication year: 2006 Publication date: 2006 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Place of publication: Bradford Country of publication: United Kingdom Publication subject: Business And Economics--Small Business ISSN: 14626004 Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature Document feature: Charts References DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000610680235 ProQuest document ID: 219199014 Document URL:https://ezproxy.uwgb.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/219199014?accountid=14788 Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2006 Last updated: 2010-06-09 Database: ABI/INFORM Complete

21 October 2015 Page 21 of 22 ProQuest

BibliographyCitation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

Ip, B., & Jacobs, G. (2006). Business succession planning: A review of the evidence. Journal of Small Businessand Enterprise Development, 13(3), 326-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000610680235

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright 2015 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

21 October 2015 Page 22 of 22 ProQuest